What is reality ?

Did you ever think about what it is that makes reality real ?
How is our reality created ? Isn't it the perceptions our brain creates based on our sensory inputs ?
But what if we lack a sense ? How does reality change for somebody who cannot hear or see ?
Or take it even a step further, assume you are deprived of all your senses, What would reality mean in such a case ?
And last but not least, let's assume you are born without any senses. What would that mean to your reality ?
So what is reality and what are we as part of this reality ?

Closing Statement from Harald Jezek

Thanks everybody for participating in this conversation.
After 900+ comments did we solve the question of what reality actually is ? Probably not, however it was a good exercise in contemplating what it actually means when we say this or this is "real".
What most of us agreed upon is that there are different aspects to reality.

One is the reality we deal with on a daily basis and which we share to a large degree. For example we agree upon common things, such as when we see a car we all agree it's a car, a tree is a tree and a house if a house.
Although we know that this reality is created by our mind based on sensory inputs which is not only incomplete but often also faulty, it still is "real" because we share the same benchmarking (same sensory inputs, generally same mechanism how our brain interprets those sensory inputs.

Beside this shared reality we all have our own reality. This can be something simple like the perception of a taste, odor or a color.
Although we might agree that a given color is read or an odor is that of a pine, we never can know how another person actually perceives this sensory input.
Individual reality also becomes visible in our beliefs. For a religious person the existence of a God is a fact and hence part of reality while for an atheist reality is free of such a God.
Differences in this aspect of reality can also be observed in how different people get different perceptions of the same situation.

Last but not least there must be an underlying objective reality which includes the laws of nature (whether those are the ones we believe are valid today or perhaps something even deeper which we don't have discovered yet) and which exists regardless of us being here to contemplate it and regardless of our beliefs.

Next time we insist something is real, let's think whether it's real for me, for all(most) of us or real in an absolute sense.

To finish with Albert Einstein:
"“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”

It's one of those words which defy definition. Google defines reality as "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them." But what does it mean to "exist"? Here is the definition from Google again: "Exist: have objective reality or being." There you go.

Here are some more things to ponder for you: "free will", "consciousness", "self", "omnipotence", "omniscience". I gave up on trying to understand these things. What does it mean to "understand", by the way? And what does it mean to "make sense"?

There is also a saying "reality causes a major stress in people who are in touch with it". It may be best to leave this question unasked. :-)

Nov 25 2013:
I liked the saying you quoted "reality causes a major stress in people who are in touch with it". Fortunately some structures can withstand the stresses within and without. I am glad you gave up trying to understand those things ... and hope you decided to focus in understanding them.

Definitely some possibilities are best to leave as just possibilities.

Keep in mind that the goal of the questions-answers some interactions centers on learning
... a teacher used to say : "there are no dumb questions, only dumb answers" ...
.... then he met one of those teachers disguised as a student who showed him the truth of the matter...
... and the teacher became the student and the student became the teacher as they shared a learning experience to truly understand the truth of the matter.

Many can give you the answer to the questions you put forth for each and all to see... question is will someone understand and make sense of them contributions in a meaningful way.

BTW words are like energy-matter and ideas... its what one does with them that determines whether they function right and cultivate well-being or function in a different fashion.

I managed to get a couple of good points from that ... one being that : "you cant see light only what it hits"
The other being something to the effect of "Cant see cant understand... some projecting that it doesn't exist"
The real knocker ideas there where towards the end: the two fundamental questions and a subtle message...

... If you ask me, only one of the queries is actually relevant .... it has to do with what to do? which to me involves being better... help each other .... to better understand ... to better make sense of the what be... to better each point and actually see what is the matter and what to do 'with' it...

Wonder a bit why the clip included so much negative framing... almost seems as if that Ignostic wanted to cultivate it ... Do notice that the narrator called himself that and declared to refuses to be drawn on the question of the existence of God unless someone properly define the term. I suppose it has something to do with a fixation with the dim stars rather than an appreciation of the mundane and the divine. To a point the more light there is the more we see certain things and the less we see other thing. It also works the other way, to a point the less light there is the more we see certain things and the less we see other thing. In the open we see certain behaviors while we tend to see other behaviors behind closed doors.

Re: "it has to do with what to do? which to me involves being better... help each other .... to better understand ... to better make sense of the what be... to better each point and actually see what is the matter and what to do 'with' it..."

He addresses this in his last quote: "We are here on earth to help others. What the others are here for, I've no idea." :-)

I don't view this video as negative. I guess, the message of the talk is to "empty our cup" of our preconceived opinions so that we can learn something new and perceive things as they are instead of perceiving them "as we are".

Thanks for providing the second link I can 'perceive' the animations resemblance ... well as far as I can tell its the same audio for both of them :-) In my response I first included the quote you mentioned and then decided to use a bit of a different framing... which shifted the focus from "We are here on earth to help others" to - We are here to be better - yea that may involve helping others or helping each other to be better... just as it may involve not helping others and even taking actions to interfering into what others want to do... To me it was important to make that 'subtle differentiation'.

For the record like you "I don't view this video as negative"... what I basically asked out loud was "why the clip included so much negative framing". Which sought to draw attention into wondering about the framings individuals choose to use. Take for example this paragraph. What are the ideas and the framings here? Let me use a different approach ... we agree on the notion "learn something new and perceive things as they are instead of perceiving them 'as we are'". It just you propose that we should "empty our cup" of our preconceived opinions so that we can do that, where as I propose that we should "fill our cup" with the appropriate conceptions and opinions so that we can do that. Note that it's actually impossible to empty a cup, a cup is always full! Note that its certainly possible to fill the cup with air then fill it with something else. If I instructed "not to think of an apple" what was it you thought and then tried not to think of it? Had I said think of an elephant, its highly unlikely that you would had thought of an apple.

In principle we agree while in practice we each seem to follow a different path... (Well maybe its the same path and we are just going in different directions).

Nov 25 2013:
Larry,
wonder who you are directing that question to... if its to me... then well lets just say that rather than focusing on determining if one be asleep or awake I just focus on what to do in the state I be in ... either way it focuses on always choosing the best possible option.

Do note I said "always choosing the best possible option" which may or may not correspond to what I/you/others may think is the best possible option.

Re: "BTW how do you manage to chose a starting point different from the point you be at?" It's funny, but not only I always start from where I am, but I also always end up where I am. I don't think, I can be anywhere except where I am, so it appears to me, that this is where I am ought to be.

"We are here and it is now. Further than that, all human knowledge is moonshine."
-- Henry Louis Mencken

This distinction between "ought" and "is" seems to be a major source of anxiety and dissatisfaction with life. We are happy when "ought" is the same as "is". We are unhappy/angry/frustrated when we think that what "is" is not what "ought". We can bring them together by "going where we want to be" or just "wanting to be where we are".

Re: "ehm.... my beliefs are based on something rather than nothing :-)"

Yeah, I know. And why do you believe that your beliefs are based on something? And what are they based on? My bet is, on some other belief. And if you say, they are based on facts, then you got to believe that you perceive and interpret these facts correctly. So, in the end, we either find "turtles all the way down" or base our beliefs on some tautology like "Reality is real" or "I think that I think, therefore I am." Or come to a contradiction like "I know that I know nothing." And that's where we should stop and hold our peace.

Nov 25 2013:
Yes. I think, I've peeled this onion with layers of illusions to discover that there is nothing in the middle. This is why I made my post.

This is a liberating understanding. As Esteban points out, we still need to live and do something to make our life "better". And since there is nothing "at the heart of the onion", we have to create a starting point, a belief. And, again, since there is nothing "at the heart of the onion", we have a great freedom in choosing the starting point. It does not have to be based on "evidence" because we do not know that evidence is real and how to prove the proof or find evidence that the evidence is "true". We don't even know what "truth" is. It has something to do with "reality" which nobody can define. It's a rabbit hole of infinite regress. Our core belief does not have to be based on reality since nobody can define what it is. So, we can freely choose our core beliefs: define our meaning of "better", to begin with.

Since I realize that my core beliefs are not based on anything, I'm tolerant to other people's beliefs because I know that they are also not based on anything.

Nov 25 2013:
ehm.... my beliefs are based on something rather than nothing :-) and my starting point is from the point I be at... that way I can start and take the first step right away without having to figure out how to move from where I happen to be to where I choose to start from... BTW how do you manage to chose a starting point different from the point you be at?

Then again maybe the point that we ought to keep in mind and focus upon has to do where we be going ---- getting there might just be a bit easier if we seek to get there!

where we are, where we ought to be, next step to get there is a simple heuristic to follow.

Seems to me that you pick the nothing onion... and believe all onions are the same. A simple definition of truth involves positive congruence between claim and fact... when one chooses to think to be what happens to be one gets to know from what one thinks what happens to be... Reality is defined as what be. There I just defined it... I suppose that based on what you said that make me be a nobody... in somebody... how about that I am both material and immaterial in nature.... sounds about right... body-mind-spirit and a bit more...

Yea you /each can choose their core beliefs: each can define their meaning of "better" and if they happen to define it according to what be better they got the better definition right... I concur "our core belief does not have to be based on reality" but when they are its much more better...

Do notice that if 'my core beliefs are not based on anything' then implicitly that means core beliefs are based on something!

Nov 25 2013:
Arkady, Yes, is think. A thought, one always followed by another. How can I find peace in this? I can not think my way to the core. Although thinking can bring me closer. The last step involves giving up everything. My mind, my thinking, my senses and plunging into the nothing. For me there was great fear involved. You have a core, a center, a heart, whatever you want to call it. Be determined and vigilant do not settle for nothing. I would like to leave a quote for you.

OUR DEEPEST FEAR

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.

Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.

It is our light and not our darkness that most frightens us.

Your playing small does not serve the world.

There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you.

We are all meant to shine as children do.

It’s not just in some of us, it’s in everyone and as we let our own light shine we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.

As we are liberated from our own fear our presence automatically liberates others.

Know that I can find peace in a thought followed by another ... maybe it has to do with the thought one chooses to think. I think I understand what you state and while in principle seem to agree with it I also think that one can think all the way to the core. Rather than giving up everything I consider its about embracing everything as one ought to embrace each thing. I can see how plunging into the nothing can be fearful, its like stepping into the unknown. I can also see how stepping into the unknown can be divine especially when plunging into something divine. As you sort of pointed out there exists a core, a center, a heart, whatever you want to call it. Be determined and vigilant do only settle for the actual truth of the matter and doing what ought to be done upon getting it.

THE deepest fear of fear is not that FEAR is inadequate, THE deepest fear is that FEAR be irrelevant to the lovely beyond measure beings who step into the unknown without fear. Moving to that domain of peace, and joy, and happiness that knows fear only as a distant possibility that shall forever remain as such, a distant possibly.

I find curious how it seems everyone wants other to be just like them... the superior want other to raise up to their level and the inferior want others to lower down to their level... the things isn't about levels its about what one be doing there.

Nov 26 2013:
Arkady,
That you have peeled the onion to find nothing inside and that such realization is liberating to you is because you have reached (or almost reached) a point where the destination starts to move with you. I think we all reach that point somehow.
We live in multiple realities, none being a preferred one. In one level we crave the reality to be absolute, visceral, raw and fleshy as if our life depends on it. In other level, we see the center of the onion and feel in our guts that we are after all in a 'pretend play', albeit an adult version of it.
I find this script with the doubtful beginning, confusing climax and uncertain end utterly interesting.

I've seen it. It belongs to Marianne Williamson. A good one. Of course, I don't settle for "nothing". I create my own "core". My reality is my beliefs. If I believe I have free will, it is as I say. If I believe I am happy, it is as I say. If I believe, I love my wife, it is as I say. If I believe, people are good in their heart, it is as I say. You see, these beliefs are not based on anything other than "self" (that's how I understand "I am who I am" mentioned in Exodus 3:14), there is no fear of losing them. But if I base them on "something" (an idol), they will disappear as soon as the idol corrupts and falls.

Nov 26 2013:
The quote from Marianne is brought forth from the principles of ACIM. She is the extension of those principles. Does it belong to her or is a gift being passed to everyone? I do have free will and when I see the choice I recognize I have no choice. Is not self the ultimate false idol? The only thing I am capable of making of myself is an empty shell of human existence. When I look upon that I see nothing.

Originally had no idea what you meant by ACIM and decided to look it up and saw that it likely refers to a course in miracles... Is it a gift that wraps the same old apple that eve and adam got offered?

Each does have free will (well if we don't any dialogue about free will is mute as each just does what they have to do). I hold to believe we each see the choices ... some choose to recognize that they have no choice and choose no choice while some choose to recognize that they have a choice and recognize the choices for what they be and make the right choice.

To answer your question about self... self is self what each self chooses to do with self determines is self becomes the ultimate false idol or becomes a self. I made a comment the other day related to escapism the ego needs to be educated rather than negated. Similarly with the self it needs to be guided to do what ought to be done as it ought to be done. When I look upon that I see that and a bit more.

Nov 26 2013:
Re: "Is not self the ultimate false idol? The only thing I am capable of making of myself is an empty shell of human existence. When I look upon that I see nothing."

The physical "self" - yes. But, as many people mention here, "self" seems to be more than the physical shell. Simply because when a person dies, we do not speak of his body as we spoke of the person. We describe it as his body.

There is nothing *physical* at the core of the onion, but where does it grow from? There is some principle at the core. It grows from "self".

Nov 26 2013:
As for me if I see an empty shell in the physical outer I know the source of the reflection. When someone dies, I will leave that to a higher authority. At the core may we find the sum of all principles. self or Self grows from what it's fed.

This pattern is fascinating because it is self-repeating. It is extremely common in nature. Shapes of flowers, pine cones, pine apples, tree leaves, sea shells, hurricanes, and galaxies are based on the same principle which, in this case, is described by Fibonacci series.

Most physical processes are described by exponential functions. Exponential functions are also extremely common in nature. They describe most oscillations and waves. Reason? What's so special about them? Nothing other than they happen to be their own derivative and thus, a solution to most differential equations that describe natural processes.

Most beautiful and most powerful things in the universe seem to be based on the same principle - they build on "self". I'd say, this "self", as a principle, transcedes the physical nature of the things where it is present. The substance and the physical nature of a broccoli flower is different from that of a galaxy, but they are still formed by the same principle. This "self" cannot be physically found. Numbers, patterns, and laws are ideas.

Ideas are often juxtaposed with reality. But it seems impossible to have ideas without physical things they represent or perceive physical things without forming an idea of what that thing is.

Nov 27 2013:
Fractals also fall in the same category, I guess. I agree with your idea of self as my observation is that in exponential growth that most natural systems follow, complexity followed by some typical phenomena like self replication, emergence and fractalization are common.

Comment deleted

Why should we consider your definition of reality as the definitive definition of reality?
In other words why should someone think that what you think to be corresponds to what be rather than think what be?

Nov 27 2013:
Esteban, one would consider Jason's definition simply to deal with the ought/is dichotomy to find a rational common ground. I, by no means, am saying Jason is 'absolutely' right. Just that what he is saying appears to me a rational view with more and more commenters arguing in the same line.

I agree we ought seek and to find a 'rational' common ground. The thing is that many use the notion "its my way or the highway" and when one responds to them: "Fine let the common ground be the highway" they insist that any common ground can only be their way.... It would be fine if their way corresponded with a truly rational form or had a direct correspondence with the highway... I can even deal with twisted logics of opposites... the thing is that there confusion reins! If you managed to understand that there understanding reins (because the opposite of confusion is understanding) you understand how simple it can be :-)

Again if we focus on just appearances rather than the actual content we may get some surprises ! I like good surprises and the others I will pass them up...

Nov 28 2013:
Hi everybody, this conversation will soon come to an end. As the author of this conversation I will be asked to make a final statement.
However, I prefer that all of you who participated in this conversation just provide a final post summarizing your own views on the topic.
This way we avoid that somebody gets left out or misinterpreted.

In addition to what you proposed which I find ought to be done I wonder IF as a group of participants we can unite to produce a shared document.

Personally I would like to read in the individuals final post a recount
1- What ideas they found valuable
2- What ideas made them wonder the most
3- What notions changed thanks to this conversation (and which stayed the same)
4- If they where to go at it again what would they do different

You all know we are close to that time of the year where one makes their wish lists...

Nov 29 2013:
Creating a shared document might be a bit a stretch, considering that this format here is not conductive for any collaborative work.
Beside, nothing will be lost. This conversation will stand here also for people that might be interested to read it in the future.
Just getting a general summary of everybody's point of view, perhaps integrating the 4 points you suggested would be good enough. Whoever wants more detail can read the individual posts.

Dec 1 2013:
Thanks for the invitation to share our perception of the conversation Harald.

The conversation seems to reinforce the perception of reality I had at the beginning of this discussion, in that there are a variety of meanings and applications for “reality”, some of which have been expressed here.

There is objective reality, which may be more scientific, with tangible evidence, and there is subjective reality which may be influenced by many internal and external factors.

What seems like evidenced, objective reality, can still be rejected by some people whose belief system, as created, does not accept the evidence. An example might be evolution, for which there is considerable evidence, and yet the evidence is rejected in favor of what appears in holy books as their personal “evidence”. We may, as groups, share perspectives, depending on our own personal belief system.

Subjective reality, seems to include our personal thoughts, feelings, ideas, beliefs, perspectives, impressions, presumptions, assumptions, etc., all of which may be influenced by many sources, and include our own personal experiences and perceptions.

I did not address your question about “senses” because I am not aware of anyone ever being born with no senses whatsoever, and with a quick search, I could not find any information about that, so my belief at this time, is that everyone has some senses, which may differ from what is considered “normal”, but none the less important and valuable.

As I said in one of my first comments in this discussion…
“Within the simple concept, there may be complex information on many different levels for different people. So, what an individual can or cannot sense or perceive is subjective.... how one's brain processes sensory input data and supply the compiled interpretation to one's ego/self is subjective, and there are probably other elements that are subjective as well.”

Nov 30 2013:
As per Harald's request, I am trying to sum up the question, the answers, different insights and whatever I learnt from this discussion.
Things (both physical and non-physical) exist within and beyond the boundary of known and knowable. Reality is that part of the existence that is included within our perception through senses, understanding, logic, introspection, inference, feeling and belief. Some of reality is rational, explainable and demonstrable - most of us agree with that. Some, however, are beyond reason and explanation and we have our individual say on it.
There is a part of physical reality that scientists and philosophers work on and strive to find out a common, underlying understanding and agreement (a theory of everything). There is a standard model of it, but true to scientific tradition it is open to challenge and transmutable.
I have found no proof, logic, evidence or hypothesis, this discussion included, to accept the notion that there is an objective, absolute, perception independent reality (an 'explain all' version of it) as more preferable to an observer/perception dependent, relative, transmutable and subjective reality ( a personal, 'aha' version of it) up till now. I am open but will prefer to follow Ockham's principle, which states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
This had been a great discussion. I will thank Harald and all those who contributed.
@Arkady: Peeling onion may be more interesting than finding anything at its center. :)

Nov 26 2013:
Esteban, I can't reply to your post below so I just start a new one referring to:
"the 9/11 notion... the fact of the matter is that it is what it is... you believe it being real doesn't make it be real....."
It doesn't matter what I believe. The earth is round, no matter whether or not I believe it. 9/11 was no conspiracy as some people believe. Again, that's the case independent of my belief.
If for some reason our knowledge about something changes (e.g. the earth is a cube) we will adjust our "belief" accordingly.
Again, we are running in circles.
On one hand I "accused" you of not putting any value on evidence. You denied that, yet you keep insisting that evidence (e.g. evidence showing us that 9/11 was a terrorist attack) cannot be trusted.
So what is it ? And if you don't trust evidence what do you trust ? Your intuition ? voices speaking to you in your head ?

In relationship to 9/11 the evidence would demonstrate if it was a controlled demolition or the result of the airplanes crashing ... we agree in that whatever the case happens to be that's the case independent of what you or me may belief to be the case. From the evidence we know that some will NOT adjust their 'beliefs' accordingly to the evidence.

Yea I noticed that you keep "accusing " me of stuff like not putting any value on evidence that a single fact will lead you to change your stand on the matter yet when I presented such evidence (in one particular case) you basically just brushed it aside and continued to insists on more examples.

Yes I keep insisting that "evidence" should be questioned and cannot be trusted... ironically its based on the evidence of the past where individuals where so certain of their claims and assertions that they missed being misguided by other who eloquently and authoritatively pushed their case. I am sure that if you seek you will find enough evidence to support what I just stated... though at this time I doubt that you will go that way...

In another post I sort of explained what I trust... a unifying congruent story that incorporates every perspective coherently ... Intuition has its place, as does logic, as does heuristics, as does feelings as does many other factors... by the way voices speaking to you in your head sound like thought seeking your attention... beware that some opposing ideas like to silence their opposites because if you where to compare the opposers vs drivers next to each other you would always pick the drivers!

Nov 26 2013:
"Yes I keep insisting that "evidence" should be questioned and cannot be trusted."
So here we go again, if evidence is not trustworthy, what is it ? A question that I asked already several times to no avail.
You seem to misunderstand evidence. Evidence in itself is no guarantee for something to be true. Evidence is not proof.
However, the more and better the evidence for a theory the more likely that this theory is true.
Example: We take it as a given that the earth is round (well, almost round) based on a vast amount of evidence.
Can you question this evidence ? Sure you can, but you will have to provide an alternative and support this alternative with evidence on its own and if your evidence showing that the earth is a cube is of higher quality than the one showing it's round then people will start listening to you.
But, just saying I don't trust evidence without providing alternatives is absolutely meaningless from a scientific point of view.

".... as does many other factors......." vague as usual ;-)
What are the "many other factors" ? Be specific.
If you write up a scientific theory you can't say, well, my theory is based on A, B and a "lot of other factors".

Nov 25 2013:
I’m going to attempt to answer this question however; I do believe I’m under qualified, especially among you elite intellectuals. I say this with the utmost admiration.

I follow the Copenhagen interpretation, “there is no deep reality”. “Our senses are constituted to give us an impression of a material world, but that this reality is a reflection of something of a different nature.” Our physical senses each have a spectrum, these senses perceives the sea of energy from a certain limited standpoint and makes up an image from that. This image is just an interpretation. Our interpretations are solely based on the ‘internal map’ of reality which is a result of our collective experiences.

Copenhagen interpretation states that we create reality by observation and that there is no reality without observation. Heisenberg divides the universe into real and semi-real and considers the elementary particles to be only potentialities or possibilities. They are made real only by the act of observation. In the not real world of potentia, all of the reactions are present. Only one of these possibilities manifests in the real world. This possibility is made solid (physically apparent) only by consciousness.

Consciousness is an ability to be aware of external forces. Cellular life and plant cells fall in this category. Their awareness is considered very rudimentary, but cells do sense in a chemical way light, heat, foreign cells, pH condition in liquids and other states of matter that can be good or bad for their survival. Awareness (consciousness) can be reduced to very minimal states. Additionally, any action also involves a large number of conscious entities. The people, plants, animals and all things that are considered as part of the action, will have input into the degree of control of the action and reaction. This depends on each entities’ ability to phase quantum waves of possibility so that they add amplitudes enough to make them apparent in our physical world.

Nov 25 2013:
Christine, There is non among us greater than you. I f you have a birth mark you've been approved if not get a tattoo are we will accept that. Intellect is a double edge sword, understand that.

I see that reality contains within it a space of infinite of possibilities (some of which remain as possibilities and some which manifest into reality). I too hold that "Only one of these possibilities manifests in the real world". To me, what possibility manifest in reality depends on a bunch of stuff that may or may not depend on the observers or individual consciousness. While we only experience reality through what we think, this map we use could accurately correspond to the reality itself... In other words if one thinks to be what actually be the map and the territory become singular identical copies corresponding to each other and picking one or the other is basically the same thing. That can't be said when what one thinks to be differs from what actually happens to be. The reality that I consider existing has material and immaterial stuff in fact the human being integrates body-mind-spirit and partakes in those three dimensions and a bit more ... Humans even have the capacity to create stuff or rearrange the existing stuff. We ought to be good caretaker of the places we happen upon.

Nov 25 2013:
Some have the illusion that they are there all alone because they only perceive those who see similar to them. :-) they just need to widen their understanding ... of course one may also have to wonder why they be at the tower of intellect rather than the library of intellect :-)

Nov 25 2013:
Christine, I think there is no disagreement with your comment, however, the observer principle is something that applies to the quantum world but not the macro world.
In other words, our universe will still be here regardless of us being around to observe it or not. Best proof for that is probably that the universe is much older than we are. So, obviously it was around long before we showed up to observe it.
Actually when we go with Feynman's "sum of all histories" then our universe is just one of many, however, we can't observe them.

Nov 23 2013:
Eventually, reality comes down to what one experiences -- either somebody has one or more senses, or has no senses. It's difficult to imagine what would be the reality for someone born without any senses. But the one certain thing is that whatever any reality he/she experience, that reality will be always related to his/her consciousness, exactly like anyone born with senses. So consciousness in whatever form is finally the sole conceiver of any reality one lives in.

Nov 24 2013:
As I wrote in my comment, ”It's difficult to imagine what would be the reality for someone born without any senses”. But please see that your question is not that simple as it looks. Because it should be noticed that among the 5 senses we have, 4 are very sophisticated, and so perhaps we can imagine that somehow one might for some reasons could be born without them. But there’s the 5th sense which is not that sophisticated, but also I guess it’s the most direct and basic one, and that is the sense of Touch. Perhaps better to say it’s actually the 1st sense, as I guess it was the first to be developed in the most primitive life forms 3 billion years ago. So I just don’t know if it’s ever possible to completely lacking that sense on each and every centimeter of the human skin.

However, even we assume it’s possible to completely missing all the senses, it should be remembered that reality is not composed only from outwardly impressions but also from inwardly /feelings//thoughts//imagination. So, suppose this utterly senseless person walks. Since he is missing even the sense of Touch, he does not feel whether the ground under his feet is cold or hot, thorny or smooth, hard or soft and so on. But still he has got the feeling that something is supporting his legs from underneath, because otherwise he could not walk. Assuming his brain is functioning well, this would be his rational conclusion. Henceforth, his imagination will get into action and start building his mental reality and so on.

Nov 25 2013:
We tend to think in pictures. If somebody says "car" you get a mental picture of a car and know what this person is talking about. If you never saw a car before you still could ask questions as what this object is about and once explained to you, you most likely would have a good understanding of the term car.
However, a person without any senses couldn't create mental images because they rely on memories and past experiences, nor could he ask questions to narrow down what the object in question might be.
In other words, could this person even develop thoughts, imaginations and feelings ? Don't they always rely on past experiences and memories of one sort or another ?
Hence, he wouldn't be able to conclude anything. Actually I assume he wouldn't even be able to formulate a thought.

Nov 24 2013:
I think no, the person will have no consciousness at all. I am in a little disagreement with Yubal and let me explain why.
Human beings have more than 5 senses. They have 5 specialized sensory organs. But those 5 and rest of all sensory processing are done by the brain directly or indirectly. So if we take it that a human being has strictly no sense, there is no communication of outward stimuli to the brain and the brain is only conducting business of the internal working of the body. That being the case, I think, the basic premises of a self recognizing consciousness is lost.
There is a valid scientific theory of the evolution of a complex brain in animals that says that the it evolved from the basic necessity of locomotion. So merely walking would require neuro-sensory support (hence some form of consciousness).
It may be possible that some form of consciousness is existent in organisms devoid of a highly developed specialized organ such as a brain. But still they must be able to exchange information with the environment surrounding them in order to live. That exchange will ensure some form of consciousness.
This part of discussion is interesting as it points out to the dependence of reality on the sense/perception and consciousness.

Nov 26 2013:
Harald, this is my reply to your last comment "We tend to think in pictures."

You make a very good point. I agree with your analysis with car. But please see that in your reply also you are thinking in pictures. Because our conceptions are not limited to only what we see, hear, touch...etc. You are giving this example and come to such conclusion because we have these senses and they occupy our mind. We get indulged in these sensory impressions because they grab the domination on our minds, as they are so powerful. And as such, we build our reality under their domination. So you are perhaps correct in saying that such senseless person could not ever imagine what a car is and also other mental images. But who says that's the only possible way to create the overall mental images ??

If we return to my previous example, where such a senseless person walks or even just lies permanently in his bed, assuming his brain is functioning OK....... Please try to imagine how he would be thinking. Can you say beyond any reasonable doubt that he can't create absolutely any image of some possible reality in his mind, using his imagination ?? It does not mean that the reality he creates in his mind is correct or factually true. But that IS the only image of reality existing in his mind.

Nov 26 2013:
Hi Yubal, you are right, I can't say beyond a reasonable doubt that a person born without senses can't think anything at all. Perhaps a neuro scientist could answer this question with more certainty. Maybe the brain could resort to another mental "language". Who knows ?
However, when we analyze our own thoughts, aren't they all made of our experiences and memories that our mind created based on whatever sensory input we got at some point in our lives ? Is there anything in your mind that wouldn't have required any sensory input ?

Nov 27 2013:
Harald, this a reply to your reply, "Hi Yubal, you are right, I can't say beyond a reasonable doubt......."

I assume that when you say "sensory input", you mean only to external sensory input. My reply and all my arguments from the beginning are based on this assumption.

I am not sure that everything we think, imagine, feel is made only from external sensory input. In our routine way of life and thinking it's extremely difficult to analyze and try to differentiate between what is originated in our minds from external input and what from our in-built qualities. There had been all along the history major debates and controversies between these 2 outlooks.

But we don't need to go that far. Suppose you eat a mango and experience it's taste. Now somebody who had never seen and eaten a mango asks you to scientifically and verbally analyze the taste of mango for him. With all the sophisticated scientific instruments we have invented, and with all the highest verbal skill anybody can have, will it be ever possible to describe the mango's taste for such a person ?? No. Because the very experience of mango's taste, like perhaps all other our experiences, are beyond any verbal or scientific analysis. What scientific or verbal analysis do, is just to map our experiences and to express them in technical or illustrative terms. But they are not able to replace the very experience itself. It's the same with our much deeper emotions like happiness, anger, love....etc. Indeed they can be provoked by external sensory input, but they are not exclusively dependent just on the external input.

Nov 27 2013:
"I am not sure that everything we think, imagine, feel is made only from external sensory input"
No. I'm not certain either, but on the other hand, when I try analyzing my thoughts I always have to conclude that at some point, the source for them was a sensory input.

"With all the sophisticated scientific instruments we have invented, and with all the highest verbal skill anybody can have, will it be ever possible to describe the mango's taste for such a person ??"
Well, we certainly can analyze all the components that make up the aroma of a mango and the fragrance industry uses this capability extensively in order to manufacture artificial flavors and fragrances.
The real question is whether or not we are able to communicate a odor or taste, or any sensory experience in such a way that another person gets a 100 % accurate impression of our own experience, I agree with you, I don't think we can.

Nov 24 2013:
Just a notice - no living creature can survive if it is having no sensations - sensations indicate the very basic process of life. Brains cannot function at all withoit any sensations (even in clinical experience of cases of intensive care artificial support). Absolutely Senseless "person" will not walk, unless it is a robot.

Nov 25 2013:
If I understand your point correctly, Yubal, you, essentially, say, that whenever we have life, we have some sort of sensory input processing. I think, we have many more senses than 5. The 5 are just the most obvious - we are aware of them. There is also a sense of gravity and balance. It seems to be distinct from the 5 usually mentioned. We are also processing signals from our internal organs. E.g. feeling constipated or feeling fatigue in our muscles does not seem to fall into into any of the 5 senses. So, when you say that a person deprived of senses would still have some sort of self-awareness, you seem to limit the meaning of "senses" to the 5 classical ones. Which, essentially, means that there will be other senses to build consciousness upon.

Pabitra's point seems to be that in the absense of ALL senses, consciousness is impossible. After all, we would have no information to be aware of ourselves. Without sensory input, there is nothing to be "aware" or "conscious" of and there is no way to be. I think, the common ground in what you say is "whenever we have life, we have some sort of sensory input processing" - simply because life means adapting to external conditions which implies a feedback system.

But here is a related question: Is what's going on inside my body "internal" to "me"? What is "I"? Is it just my body or something transcedental? My brain melts down when I ponder these questions.

Nov 25 2013:
Arkady & Pabitra, excellent distinctions you make about the various sorts of senses. You are also right that I had limited the senses to the 5 input senses from the external. I did that because for me that is the first meaning when talking hereby about senses. There are 2 reasons for that.

1. SENSE by Oxford dictionary:
The first meaning there: “faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus; one of the faculties of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch.”

2. The host of this discussion asks most of his questions at the title regarding these 5 senses. Just In his 2nd last question he asks about getting born without any senses, but still in that question there’s a hidden pre-assumption that our awareness is functioning.

However, people too easily ignore our internal world which is emotions, imagination, thoughts – which all influence our consciousness. Suppose one doesn’t have even sense of gravity & balance as you say. But so what ?? He can lay down on bed and be fed by somebody. But this does not cancel his consciousness – even suppose just consciousness that he exists.

Not only your brain melts down when pondering these questions. Many brains had melted in the past by these questions. Exactly because of this the ancient Indians came to the conclusion that to answer these questions, brain and its normal thinking activity are not enough. What’s required to answer these questions is to get rid of this brain activity, to completely pause the thinking activity and then just to watch yourself without interferring, to experience the pure consciousness. Not to think about it, not to talk about it, not to describe it. They said it’s absolutely impossible to really grasp what the consciousness is just by thinking because the thinking process is subordinate to the pure consciousness. To achieve all this they developed the Yoga and Meditation.

Note that what they say, what happens to be and the actual congruence between them.
Just think that they may not want you to think about it because they can't think about it nor want to be subordinate to the pure consciousness. To really grasp what the consciousness is may be accomplished through the appropriate thoughts, ideas feelings emotions actions... which can only be understood by those who understand. Kind of esoteric from a certain viewpoint. What I want to share is that to answer these questions one needs the proper thinking activity and with the proper thinking activity it is more than enough for anyone can get it right when they know the right answer... those who know the right answer don't have to ask what is the right answer... those who don't know the right answer will not understand the answer even when given the right answer.

You probably know the saying that when the student is ready the master-teacher shows up... and they walk as one sharing the adventure of learning. Before the student was ready there was just the students.

Nov 25 2013:
Re: " But so what ?? He can lay down on bed and be fed by somebody. But this does not cancel his consciousness – even suppose just consciousness that he exists."

That person would still have a sense of hunger, perhaps. So, there would still be sensory input to the brain from the person's stomach. And if not, people would call such person "unconscious". So, my point still stands: "wherever there is life, there is some sort of sensory signal processing." And, by the way, we may have sensory input, but be unaware of it like, for example, we do not "feel" a watch on our wrist unless we consciously direct our attention to our wrist. We also may have a lack of sensory input and be unaware of it being sure that we have sensory input where we don't (e.g. blind spot or being sure that the watch is on our wrist when it's not). So, what does consciousness have to do with reality? It perceives things that are not there and fails to perceive things that exist.

So, signal processing seems to be necessary for life to exist. However, life is not necessary for signal processing to exist. Cell phones these days have visual sensors, audio sensors, touch sensors, RF sensors, gravity sensors, proximity sensors. I'm sure, taste and smell sensors are technically possible. There is a great deal of signal processing going on in cell phones. Cell phones are "aware" of many, many things. Can they be called "conscious"? Can consciousness exist outside a living body?

Nov 25 2013:
There is much talk about AI these days. AI presumes that it is possible to create consciousness or awareness outside a human being. But then, why can't we think of the universe as conscious? E.g. Earth receives "sensory input" from the Sun and the Moon. It "reacts" to these signals in various ways. Why can't living creatures on Earth be compared to neurons establishing links with each other? White cells in the blood attack and destroy bacteria and viruses, much like police tackles criminals or predators kill the prey.

We don't usually think of Earth as conscious. And, if we do, we mean it in metaphoric or allegorical sense. But then, when we talk about our own consciousness (a concept which is reduced to nonsense by the reductionist approach widely used in science), don't we also use allegories and metaphors?

I'm not trying to argue with you or push any particular agenda or opinion of mine. I'm just shining light on some facets of this question that cannot be answered. These discussions can go on and on and on and, at the end, we will just confess our inability to answer them (if we are wise enough to do that like Socrates who, allegedly, said "I know that I know nothing").

Nov 25 2013:
Dear Arkady,
It is better to risk your brain to melt down rather than having the safety of getting it frozen! :)
There are levels of consciousness I think.
The most developed and complex one is one associated with mind, the self recognizing one that gives us the idea of 'self' as observing and making meaning of the external world through inbound stimuli. The 5 senses that we are so familiar with are important in this context. The sense of orientation controlled by middle ear also fall in this category. The sense of temperature too, I guess.
When brain stops processing all those signals, we are in what we loosely call the 'unconscious' state. But there are other senses still functional; senses that are internal to the body, senses that control bowel movement, complex decision making of guts to digest food, senses that control heart rate etc. The brain is still functioning and one can say, there is some sort of consciousness that works for preservation of life.
I think we can hardly take it as a consciousness that has anything to do with processing the reality.

Nov 26 2013:
Arkady, this is my reply to your last replies ("Re: " But so what ??", " There is much talk about AI these days.").

This discussion was initiated with the question, "What is reality?"

When discussing reality as perceived in our minds, there's a pre-assumption that we are talking about conscious minds. Even when we dream in sleep and we experience the dream as reality while sleeping, there must be at least some level of alert consciousness to experience the dream so lively. So it's obvious that whenever we say reality hereby, even in the most senseless person's mind, we mean to a conscious mind who can experience things while being alertly aware of whatever reality it experiences//creates//imagines in his mind. It's not about just life signals or anything else in unconscious mind. It's not just about hunger, but it's about the awareness of being hungry, which I say the senseless person can experience lively in his mind, and so this like other things would be his//her mind’s subjective valid reality.

You gave an example of a watch on our wrist we do not feel. So think what does this mean reality-wise. It means that as long as one does not feel the watch on his wrist, that watch is NOT a part of his reality. For that period of time the watch does not exist for him//her.

Cellphones, cameras, computers, AI, are not conscious at all, and in my view they will never be. They do not have minds and so they are incapable of being conscious for experiencing, although they have all the electric currents and the sophisticated components. So we see that reality as we experience is not just about electric stimulus in our nerves. It’s not just about replicating mechanistically the brain processes.

I read your comments. Thanks. I don't disagree with you. But all the examples you have simply express a belief that consciousness is something that only live creatures can have. However, you do not explain why.

What is it exactly that allows us to say that we are "conscious" and "intelligent"?

Watch this http://youtu.be/W1czBcnX1Ww
When I first saw this video, my reaction was "WTF?" But I was very impressed when I watched the guy trying to kick this machine out of balance and I saw how it behaves on a slippery surface. It does seem to be "aware" of the environment and I doubt that the exact movements of the legs to keep balance on ice is programmed. I think, the time is near when these things will look like living creatures.

Note what Raffaello says about the quads around 12 min of the video:
"Take this quad, for example. It's trying to stay at a fixed point in space. If I try to move it out of the way, it fights me, and moves back to where it wants to be." I find it very interesting that, perhaps, he does not consider these machines conscious or intelligent, but, nevertheless, he uses language as if they are. The machine is "trying" to do something, "fights" and "wants".

It seems to me that if AI is created, it will not be on purpose and it will look different from what we expect. It will be real. I asked this chatbot http://www.chatbots.org/chat_bot/captain_kirk/ "what is intelligence?" The chatbot replied "Intelligence is the ability to fake intelligence". There is no difference between "real" and "fake" intelligence.

It turns out, plants react to stimuli - touch, light, electricity, gravity, sound; plants have memory; plants communicate with each other, and have cells resembling and functioning like neurons. Can it be called "intelligence"?

I would not call it my belief. It's rather my reason's judgement summing up what we know and see today. Perhaps my judgement will be found to be wrong somewhere in the future. Or a new data will come tomorrow which might change my this judgement. But right now this is my best judgement about machines and their inability to acquire consciousness.

My explanation is this: Life (consciousness) as we know today began to form about 3 billion years ago. Besides some very marginal exceptions, this life has something very common and that is it's Organic (Carbon) basis. I have no clue, and I doubt if any scientist has, why the life got formed and evolved only on such narrow basis of carbon, etc. Why life did not evolve on the basis of so many other elements ?? My reason tells me that if any consciousness or life could be formed by some alternative way, this alternative way would not wait for 3 billion years to get started. We would see at least some very basic forms of life in that alternative way, whatever it might be.

Another explanation is that, we find out that life is not merely playing around with electro-chemical processes, or with electric currents, or with various mixtures of chemicals. If this was so, scientists would be able to create life in laboratories from the basic elements 100 years ago. But they are unable to create even a single cell in their laboratories.

Plants do have consciousness. IMO, any consciousness means some sort of intelligence. Intelligence does not has to be only like humans. Intelligence in my view is anything which allows its carrier to feel its surrounding, make distinctions between the countless parameters constructing its surrounding and to selectively interact with its surrounding for its conscious, sub-conscious or unconscious purposes.